3 ms·

Warning shots are part of the procedure. If a german officer wants to use his firearm, he has to warn the other party either verbally or ideally with a warning

by tetha 14y ago

Warning shots are part of the procedure. If a german officer wants to use his firearm, he has to warn the other party either verbally or ideally with a warning shot, if time permits and if no immediate threat exists to the officer himself or other persons.

staunch 14y ago
The problem is that there's simply no way to safely fire a gun in a confined public area. If you look at what it takes to make a gun range safe you'll see why. You need a large non-ricocheting backstop to be safe.
- vegardx 14y ago
  So you in your opinion it's better to shoot to kill a person than to give a fair warning that they mean business, where there is a slight, near non-existent, chance of bystanders getting hurt or killed. I would agree with you if they were using high powered rifles with armour piercing rounds, but most shots fired by police are from hand guns. When I was enlisted we were trained to fire warningshots in the ground or something hard in near proximity of the target. This way you knew that your bullet would land within a visible area that you would be able to make sure was reasonably safe.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    In my opinion a gun is a measure of last resort, to only be used when nothing else is possible. A gun is a lethal weapon, and it is used to kill. When a gun is used the shooter has to be thinking that someone needs to be killed. "Warning shots" carry the risk of injuring / killing innocent people. They also carry a risk of injuring / killing the criminal. That risk is unacceptable. Warning shots mean that guns are used before they absolutely have to be used. But if warning shots are needed why not have one officer armed with a blank-firing pistol?
    - vegardx 14y ago
      I disagree, as a warningshot is usually followed with lethal shots within seconds. You basically give them one last chance, if the circumstances allow for it (!), to lay down the weapon.

by tetha 14y ago

staunch 14y ago

The problem is that there's simply no way to safely fire a gun in a confined public area. If you look at what it takes to make a gun range safe you'll see why. You need a large non-ricocheting backstop to be safe.

vegardx 14y ago
So you in your opinion it's better to shoot to kill a person than to give a fair warning that they mean business, where there is a slight, near non-existent, chance of bystanders getting hurt or killed. I would agree with you if they were using high powered rifles with armour piercing rounds, but most shots fired by police are from hand guns. When I was enlisted we were trained to fire warningshots in the ground or something hard in near proximity of the target. This way you knew that your bullet would land within a visible area that you would be able to make sure was reasonably safe.
- DanBC 14y ago
  In my opinion a gun is a measure of last resort, to only be used when nothing else is possible. A gun is a lethal weapon, and it is used to kill. When a gun is used the shooter has to be thinking that someone needs to be killed. "Warning shots" carry the risk of injuring / killing innocent people. They also carry a risk of injuring / killing the criminal. That risk is unacceptable. Warning shots mean that guns are used before they absolutely have to be used. But if warning shots are needed why not have one officer armed with a blank-firing pistol?
  - vegardx 14y ago
    I disagree, as a warningshot is usually followed with lethal shots within seconds. You basically give them one last chance, if the circumstances allow for it (!), to lay down the weapon.